How much Georges Bataille should I read before I read this? Which works of his are best?
generally speaking, secondary texts on philosophers not explicitly billed as a good intro to their work assume a thorough knowledge of the philosopherbut ur just in it for the memes so who cares
>>7841464
Not memeing. That is why I want to know which one of his texts to read first. Like before Nick Land's book.
>>7841464
generally speaking, there are still a good number of books that are actually good introductions to a philosopher's thought.
faggot
>>7841439
Only read one of his books, read it in french if you can. Story of the Eye.
>Routlege logo
confirmed academic-industrial complex trash of no lasting value
>>7841546
>2016
>lasting value
>>7841546
routledge is outrageous when it come to pricing their books. fucking assholes.
>>7841546
what's wrong with routledge? they produce maybe 1 valuable book for every truck full they produce. Compared to McGraw Hill, they're not bad.
>>7841572
their output is just a dumping ground for academic writing of no worth other than to tenure committees or whatever
>>7841565
Every academic or university press does that.
>>7841602
yeah but routledge has no shame at all
>>7841565
http://libgen.io/ads.php?md5=C069649ACECFF8776B471E74BAEE521D
DO WHAT YOU WANT CAUSE A PIRATE IS FREE
>>7841616
Epub would be better.
>>7841439
So have you read any Bataille? If you haven't read any at all, you should at least read Story of the Eye for the kind of "ethos" and then if you're interested in the philosophic works you could turn to Visions of Excess, which is pretty damn good. Land is going to do a fair amount of Bataille's economic work, which you could also read, or allow Land to show you what he gets out of it.
The book is great. There's poems in there that are pretty good too. And the chapter on entropy is great. Apparently Land is kind of "out there" now, but when he wrote this... he was onto something.
He shits on Derrida too, and champions Deleuze, which is cool.
Read it OP.
Make sure to read Literature & Evil by Bataille. It's a crucial work of his.
>>7842015
>Apparently Land is kind of "out there" now
adderall is a hell of a drug. also, he was probably sick of upper-class echelon academia.
bump due to shit threads
>>7842015
>Apparently Land is kind of "out there" now
this is bullshit, he is just more direct about his beliefs now
>Nick Land
So his philosophy is, we're thirsty.
>>7843367
greedy and gluttonous people, who can never have enough, are ruining the world. these people are insatiable vampires, sucking the world dry.
if germany had won world war 2 terrorism would be a solved problem
>>7843379
no, muslims are ruining the world
>>7843379
what if "greedy and glutinous people" had actually decided they had "enough" in say 1850? we would have no railroads, no telephones, no electricity, no sewage systems, no computers, no ....
why don't u think for two seconds before u spew your next load of resentful teen angst, faggot
>>7843413
You're not thinking far enough. If people collectively, absolutely decided that the future is not worth investing in at any cost, they would among other things stop procreating, which would be a good thing.
>>7843413
>we would have no railroads, no telephones, no electricity, no sewage systems, no computers, no
(1) what do inventions have to do with the concept of greedy desiring-machines? you completely missed the point.
(2)
if the world wasn't run by greedy insatiable pigs, we would have far less pollution, no wars waged for natural resources and economic leverage, no nuclear weapons, no wage slaves, no mindless types of entertainment used to enslave the masses, no brain-dead zombies, no mass consumerism, no overpopulation, no...
what is wrong with not having things that have little to do with our basic survival as a species? were the native americans less alive because they didn't have cell-phones? you think having material goods makes you better than someone else? enjoy your commodity fetishism, and enjoy being enslaved by oligarchical power, you fucking idiot.
>>7843427
>They would among other things stop procreating, which would be a good thing.
excuse me but u have to over 18 to post on this board my edgy teen friend
>>7843463
so how's being 16 treating u? did u get any pussy yet or are u as autistic in real life as u are on 4chan?
>>7843480
Nice comeback, did it take the entire 20ish minutes for you to come up with it?
>>7843484
obvious troll is obvious. 1/10 bait. try harder next time. also, don't comment on threads when you clearly haven't read the material in question. go read a book and then come back. thanks.
to the thread at hand: land was highly influenced by d&g, and approaches life from the framework of rhizomatic systems (a plane of immanence occupied by BwOs). when he speaks of insatiable appetites, he is referencing the idea of desiring-machines: those which are not BwOs and which are enslaved to corporate capitalistic tendencies. They are OwBs: fragmented and divided, unable to see the holistic unity if humanity itself.
>>7843501
*of
>>7843501
are u sure u can handle all those spooks lil buddy?
>>7843494
>thinks i'm going to "come up with a reply" to some childish anti-natalist pleb shit fit for a high school drop out
lol gd1
>>7843515
d&g's philosophy is rather nihilistic in scope when you look at what it's actually addressing. stirner wouldn't have had a problem with it since the philosophy of d&g tries to get people to see beyond false differences which are used to generate identities. d&g are spook-busters in the strictest sense. they just adhere to the po-mo style and use crazy and kooky metaphors for their ideas. it makes the reading fun though (as least to me).
>>7843531
are you that same poster that was here a couple of weeks back that got btfo'd in the deleuze thread? used to use a trip? you're kind of talking like him... throwing concepts around.
>>7843858
no. i've only used a trip once (many years ago) on this site, and that was more or less as a joke. why?
>>7842015
>>7843501
>>7843531
These are the only posts in this thread that are of some value.
I have recently picked up Land's book and have read the first couple of chapters. Really interesting stuff. The thing is, Nick Land's book on Bataille is not strictly speaking 'on Bataille'. It is an attempt to approach Bataille's philosophy in the way Bataille philosophized: fragmented, excremental, and heterogeneous.
What I've read (and recommend you read!) of Bataille:
>The Story of the Eye
>The Accursed Share (even just read the first 40 pages, that is the best imho)
>The Solar Anus
>The Pineal Eye
>Base Materialism
Land is a verbose writer. He uses words and phrases that are rather complex and unnecessary but that is the style of his writing. I can respect it however he can get carried away at times.
Basically, if you want to glean as much as you can from "The Thirst for Annihilation" then at least have a solid background in the history of philosophy: Kant, Hegel, and Nietzsche in particular. It would help if you knew something about Deleuze and Derrida, however Land does an excellent job at explaining their notoriously difficult takes on philosophy, what philosophizing is, and how they read/approach certain philosophers.
At the end of the day, you'll learn something from this crazy and extremely intriguing book. I doubt that it'll give you (and me!) a super duper introduction to Bataille's thought, simply because he explicitly says that the book is not an "Introduction to Bataille" book, as that would be a bastardization and pathetic attempt to reduce a philosophers work into mere bullet points - something Bataille would have loathed and probably laughed at.
Hit me up if you have any additional questions. I'm quite the Bataille (and Nietzsche - Bataille's philosophical father) fan and think that Land's reading of Bataille is indeed intricate and unique but not necessarily what I think Bataille is 'about'.
>>7843531
what makes an identity "false"? you mean "emo kid" and "jock" aren't real?! fuck my mind would totally blown by that if i was a 16 year old eating lunch in a high school cafeteria, u sir r one edgy duder
>>7844550
Mein gott how American
>>7844559
u know wut else isn't real "rhizomatic networks" and "desiring machines" and all the other stupid phrases those jackasses peddle to try hard dweeblords
>>7844526
What's the best entry point on Bataille?
Me: >>7844526
>>7844641
I think the best way anyone should initially approach Bataille is with his fantastically ridiculous and ever so smart essay: "The Solar Anus".
It is only 5 pages long and yet it's jam packed with all of his major themes and interests: excess, death, excrement, eroticism, parody, luxury, consumption, the Sun, annihilation and base materialism.
Great essay :) I recommend reading it at least 3 times. It'll make more sense each time you read it.
>>7841439
sick reddit meme my man
kill yourself
Me: >>7844695
>>7844641
And if you are looking for something more philosophically lengthy then like I said above >>7844526 read the first 40 pages of "The Accursed Share" Vol. I - Consumption, the section called - Theoretical Introduction.
It gives a brilliant overview of what Bataille sees as his contribution to philosophy and economics - what he calls: General Economy "in which 'expenditure' (the 'consumption)' of wealth, rather than production, was the primary object." (pg. 9)
:)
Also, laughter is one of the key things to understanding Bataille - nihilistic laughter to be precise :P
